The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is considering whether the Treasury met its legal obligations to consider the effect of the review on groups protected by the 2006 Equalities Act. It is the first time a Government spending review or Budget has been examined by the commission.
A spokeswoman told Sky News: "Following much discussion with the Government after June's Emergency Budget, we were still concerned it may not comply with the legislation. "That is why we took the decision to hold a formal assessment of the Spending Review."
Shadow minister for women Yvette Cooper said: "George Osborne clearly has something to hide...."Parliamentary questions are being ducked, freedom of information requests delayed and the commission stopped in getting all the facts..."Time and time again the Treasury are blocking legitimate questions about the facts and fairness of their plans..."It's now crystal clear that this Government is hitting women and families much harder than men - they just don’t want the truth to get out."
But a spokesman for the Treasury said: "HM Treasury takes its equalities responsibilities very seriously and will work closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to demonstrate that legal obligations have been met."
According to the EHRC: "Under the public sector equality duties, covering race, gender and disability, the Treasury, like all public bodies, has a legal duty to pay 'due regard' to equality and consider any disproportionate impact on protected groups when making decisions, including decisions about the budget.
"Where decisions are found to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group protected by the legislation, public bodies must consider what actions can be taken to avoid, mitigate or justify that impact."
I suppose man of the people Baron to be Boy George Osbourne will state when he stops ducking that he is treating people fairly, just some people more fairly than others.
Especially the disgraced liberal MP David Laws who is one of those treated more fairly than other. This former minister who resigned over expenses revelations could return to the Government very soon, King Cameron has hinted.
Post by nickd (Mylegal) on Nov 26, 2010 14:35:38 GMT
What makes this all the more unfair is how a number of un-debated statutory instruments seem to being pushed forward to get passed off, any reform of this nature should be fully debated. Keep a careful eye on the regulations and amendments!
Post by Colin Henderson on Nov 26, 2010 14:54:51 GMT
The Fawcett Society have commenced an unprecedented judicial review of the Budget on the basis that its provisions (and presumably now also those of the CSR) breached the governments duty to avoid discrimination. Very creative stuff - see here for further info: www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1177
But in the end I'm sure that only widespread political protest and action will produce change, no matter what the judges or the Commission say.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission today started a process to carry out a formal, independent assessment of the extent to which the Treasury has met its legal obligations to consider the impact on protected groups of decisions contained in the Spending Review.
The assessment is to be conducted under powers granted to the Commission under section 31 of the 2006 Equality Act.
Under the public sector equality duties, covering race, gender and disability, the Treasury, like all public bodies, has a legal duty to pay 'due regard' to equality and consider any disproportionate impact on protected groups when making decisions, including decisions about the budget. Where decisions are found to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group protected by the legislation, public bodies must consider what actions can be taken to avoid, mitigate or justify that impact.
The Commission’s role is to ensure that the Treasury has complied with its legal obligations; the start of this assessment should not be taken as an indication that the Treasury has not done so. The assessment is an opportunity for the Commission to continue its ongoing constructive work with the Treasury to evaluate what steps it has undertaken to comply with the legislation and identify any potential opportunities for improvement. This process will enable lessons to be learnt across Government to improve outcomes for protected groups by putting fairness and transparency at the heart of difficult decisions.
In practical terms, the assessment will be governed by terms of reference, which will be published shortly after consultation with HMT, as required by the 2006 Act. As the assessment unfolds, the Commission will have access to all the relevant information it needs to make a conclusive assessment. Once the assessment is complete, the Commission will report its findings and may make recommendations. If the assessment finds a breach, the Commission can serve a compliance notice, or enter into a binding agreement with the Treasury for it to take steps to avoid further breaches. If a public authority such as the Treasury fails to comply with a compliance notice or the binding agreement, the Commission can apply to a court for an order compelling them to comply.
The Commission aims to publish its final report next Summer.
The BEAST of Bradford' strikes again. At a stroke the homeless problems will be eradicated under a new reform proposed by the larger than life minister. BBC news reports
'Councils in England are to learn later how much the funding they receive from central government will be cut over the next two years.....The bill also proposes a change in the role that councils play in finding accommodation for homeless families. Instead of being obliged to house families who are eligible, councils would be able to discharge their responsibilities by finding them private rented accommodation for at least 12 months. '
So I presume they will pass them a copy of the local bugle opened at the classified rental adds.
Mr Pickles is hard on the homeless and even harder on the causes of homelessness, but whistles a different tune when it concerns himself
His website reports
'Eric's London Flat'.....I do not take the parliamentary allowance for my London flat; I ceased claiming it when I became Conservative Party Chairman. '
So you did claim the allowance before then Eric?
'I purchased my London flat from my own savings and income; I received no contribution from parliament for legal fees, stamp duty, furniture or electrical goods. '
Just like everyone else does Eric unless your homeless under your reforms.
'When I claimed the allowance I chose not to take the full amount allocated by parliament. '
And you so hate state dependency Eric those people picking the tax payers pocket
Most MPs of all political parties on the outer rim of the M25 have a London base..... Parliament operates long, erratic and unpredictable hours and as a serious MP I hope I am more effective by living close to Westminster
So we should call you 'Eric Two Pads' then.
Parliament in April 2009 tightened the rules for constituencies that qualify of for the allowance;.... Nevertheless, I believe that the role of Conservative Party Chairman is such that I should not make a claim.
So why did you claim before you became chairman for your two pads, two pads?
Brentwood Gazette’s Verdict on Eric Pickles’ Parliamentary Claims
“OUR MP IS SQUEAKY CLEAN ON EXPENSES” "Our MP is one of the few saintly figures to emerge in the aftermath of the expenses scandal. Eric Pickles, MP for Brentwood and Ongar, had nothing to hide when he visited the Gazette to show us his claims sheets and bills. Mr. Pickles was among the lowest claimants for his second home in Wapping and has stopped claiming the additional costs allowance for the flat since becoming Party Chairman. Furthermore, he has never claimed for a taxi journey, never maxed out his £400 a month food budget and never claimed for furnishings, appliances and luxury items in his home.'
So it should be Saint Squeaky Clean Eric Two Pads?
Saint Two Pads was rather more squeaky than clean on Question Time in 2009 when he tried to explain why he needed a second home in London paid for by the taxpayer when he lives only 35 miles from London. He squawked that if he didn’t have a flat in London he would have to get up at 5.30am in the morning to be sure he made it into work on time and was rather upset that he had to work late. The audience were incandescent.
A Tory Colleague spoke of Saint Two Pads in the Independent dated 24.01.09 "he's no fool......He's an earthy counterweight to the Notting Hill set. His bulk gives him bottom and gravitas; bald people don't do well in politics but big people do."
So with Saint Two Pads with his two pads is do as I say not as I do.
His view on his job in 2009 was 'The really successful party chairmen are the ones you don’t really remember.”
Post by nickd (Mylegal) on Dec 13, 2010 20:29:11 GMT
I listened to Pickles on the Politics show on Sunday and didn't think he fared at all well when being questioned on various aspects of the reforms. It just strikes me very little has been thought through.
So Ikbikb; are you saying two pads is in a pickle or pickle is in two pads?